What is the REAL objectivist view on homosexuality?
Thoughts?
http://atlassociety.org/commentary/co...
So according to Objectivism , sex is potentially moral, but what about homosexuality? The few times Ayn Rand spoke publicly about homosexuality, her remarks were disparaging. She said that homosexuality is a manifestation of psychological "flaws, corruptions, errors, [and] unfortunate premises" and that it is both "immoral" and "disgusting" ("The Moratorium on Brains," Ford Hall Forum Lecture [Boston, 1971]).
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ant...
Observe that today’s resurgence of tribalism is not a product of the lower classes—of the poor, the helpless, the ignorant—but of the intellectuals, the college-educated “elitists” (which is a purely tribalistic term). Observe the proliferation of grotesque herds or gangs—hippies, yippies, beatniks, peaceniks, Women’s Libs, Gay Libs, Jesus Freaks, Earth Children—which are not tribes, but shifting aggregates of people desperately seeking tribal “protection.”
The common denominator of all such gangs is the belief in motion (mass demonstrations), not action—in chanting, not arguing—in demanding, not achieving—in feeling, not thinking—in denouncing “outsiders,” not in pursuing values—in focusing only on the “now,” the “today” without a “tomorrow”—in seeking to return to “nature,” to “the earth,” to the mud, to physical labor, i.e., to all the things which a perceptual mentality is able to handle. You don’t see advocates of reason and science clogging a street in the belief that using their bodies to stop traffic, will solve any problem.
http://atlassociety.org/commentary/co...
So according to Objectivism , sex is potentially moral, but what about homosexuality? The few times Ayn Rand spoke publicly about homosexuality, her remarks were disparaging. She said that homosexuality is a manifestation of psychological "flaws, corruptions, errors, [and] unfortunate premises" and that it is both "immoral" and "disgusting" ("The Moratorium on Brains," Ford Hall Forum Lecture [Boston, 1971]).
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ant...
Observe that today’s resurgence of tribalism is not a product of the lower classes—of the poor, the helpless, the ignorant—but of the intellectuals, the college-educated “elitists” (which is a purely tribalistic term). Observe the proliferation of grotesque herds or gangs—hippies, yippies, beatniks, peaceniks, Women’s Libs, Gay Libs, Jesus Freaks, Earth Children—which are not tribes, but shifting aggregates of people desperately seeking tribal “protection.”
The common denominator of all such gangs is the belief in motion (mass demonstrations), not action—in chanting, not arguing—in demanding, not achieving—in feeling, not thinking—in denouncing “outsiders,” not in pursuing values—in focusing only on the “now,” the “today” without a “tomorrow”—in seeking to return to “nature,” to “the earth,” to the mud, to physical labor, i.e., to all the things which a perceptual mentality is able to handle. You don’t see advocates of reason and science clogging a street in the belief that using their bodies to stop traffic, will solve any problem.
Or to put it another way - if you have the best worker, the best producer of consistent high quality, that brings your company in its greatest profit and successes, but said person is in a same-sex relationship, would you fire that person that is your success because of your emotional baggage? Cut your own throat to make a stand based on an emotional premise, not a rational one?
Homosexuality - to someone who really -is- a true objectivist - doesn't even come into the equation. No more than does the color of ones skin, or what their beverage of choice is.
It's just not my business.
Personally I don't care what consenting adults do behind closed doors and I'm not interested in knowing either. I do object to being bludgeoned with peoples choices in many areas, including sexual orientation.
However, I also recognize that 1) sex is natural and 2) homosexuality is natural, 3) sex is not just for procreation. Homosexuality exists in humans and animals, and it's practice is important to the well-being of those with that bias. Fundamentally, what others do has no little/no affect on my life.
It is important to those so inclined. It is natural. It does not impose on my freedoms and happiness. Therefore, it should be legal and accepted.
I have very good homosexual friends. I helped one couple build their deck. We go to dinner and parties regularly. They have the manners not to snuggle around me. I make gay jokes and they poke fun at me for being straight and/or gay tendencies. So simple.
Homosexuals, not minorities, should not enjoy special rights, and the ability to force someone at gunpoint to make them a wedding cake. This is an entirely different issues, and offensive.
Objectively, homosexuality is fine. If you don't want to hang around them, don't. However, it seems wholly inappropriate to deny them the same rights straight people have or to ostracize them.
The Word Justice.. There never needs to be anything in front of it. Social Justice, Economic Justice, since that implies that Justice is not justice. Minority is the same. If you are not in a majority you are in a minority and I argue that every individual is a minority in themselves.
Since every individual IS a minority, and NOBODY should get special rights, so in that we are in complete agreement.
So I asked a simple question, here is a cut/paste:
"I have a simple question for you guys. After your done swishing your penis around in the other guys rectum, coating it in fecal matter, to you at least wipe it off before you "do other things" with it?
These gay people, got very upset with me, called me vulgar, said that was disgusting. My final comment was:
"Where is your gay pride man...and thanks for proving my point."
No personally I do not care one iota where they stick their genitals as long as they are not sticking it in my direction.
(edited for one missing word)
-1.
If it is accurate why would it be inappropriate? I used typical medical terms.
If you find that description inappropriate, vulgar or disgusting, and the actual mechanics, "not right," then maybe your not as "tolerant" as you think. Where is your gay pride? Be proud of it. Own it..
It suggests a deep seated hatred for homosexuals.
There are heterosexuals who engage in the same acts.
Would you ask them the same deeply personal question framed with the same antagonism?
I think not.
https://www.medinstitute.org/2012/06/...
General health risks:
•Unlike the vagina, the tissues of the anus are not stretchy. This means that the anus can easily tear, which puts the receiving partner in danger of anal abscesses, hemorrhoids, or fissures (a very large tear).
•Anal sex can weaken your muscles down there, which makes it hard to hold feces.
•The anus is full of bacteria. Consequently, the giving partner is especially prone to infections.
Pregnancy:
•You cannot get pregnant from the act alone. However, semen could still leak into the vagina and impregnate the woman.
STDs:
•The fragile nature of the anal tissue makes it easier for STDs to enter into the bloodstream.
•Unprotected anal sex is one of the primary ways in which HIV is spread. If you don’t already know, HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) can eventually lead to AIDS!
•Recent studies have linked anal sex to anal cancer. HPV (Human Papillomavirus) is closely associated with anal cancer, which is frequently spread through anal sex.
•The use of a latex condom certainly lowers the chances of contracting an STD. However, even perfect condom use does not completely eliminate the risk of STDs. In fact, the condom is more susceptible to leakage, breakage, and slippage during anal intercourse.
Journal of the American Medical Association, Volume 64
https://books.google.com/books?id=VB4...
There are more, but this is just one where the term "swish" is used to describe motion.
In none of your citations was the word "swish" used as a double-entendre in reference to homosexuals.
So, while you cited the correct combination of letters, you did not cite the meaning.
Eg: "The car is red" - does "red" here refer to a testarossa (a sports car in the color red) or a trabant (An East German approved substandard car)?
When you find a citation which uses "swish" as a knowing double-entendre, spoken as the author's own words, then you will have disproved my assertion and lent credence to yours.
I'll wait...
They do...your statement was false. A=A
Is that any better? Does that change the actual mechanics, or the results?
I prefer being blunt and straightforward.
Hate is an emotional response, and as such, a subjective evaluation.
For all I know, she hated Italian food - her personal likes or dislikes have nothing to do with Objectivism.
Rand, however, did think that all manners of word play intended to cloud or color an issue were used specifically to remove reason from the argument.
There is a very big difference between "safe anal intercourse requires extra attention to hygiene" and "...swishing your penis around in the other guys rectum, coating it in fecal matter, to[sic] you at least wipe it off before you 'do other things' with it?" or even "repeatedly entering and exiting, coating the penis in fecal matter?".
"Blunt and straightforward" uses precise language.
One version is precise, the other two are precisely colored.
Nothing hateful about it, just a FACT! I am sorry you do not like FACTS and consider FACTS hateful, but THAT IS an ACCURATE description of the physical mechanics of male on male gay love.
I can provide you also the Military link on what the United States Military says happens when you come in physical contact with Fecal Matter, and the associated issues. Is that also hateful?
Presenting an accurate description is neither hateful, nor judgmental, simply a fact.
Word choice is classic rhetoric.
"Swishing"- This is a rhetorical word choice, not a fact, and a word chosen because "swish" is a derogatory term for male homosexuals.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define...
"to[sic] you at least wipe it off before..." - This is an accusatory question, not a fact, implying that homosexual men are "dirty".
Are homosexual men "unclean"?
But let me assume the ridiculous.
I will assume that every single person straight and gay, practicing this behavior prior to engaging, during and after always engages in a safe manner using condoms and disinfectants to assure a perfectly safe encounter.
Still does not change the ACTUAL description of the mechanics..NOR the negative reaction YOU and others have for it.
Edited for word choice
"I evolved my opinion...
You changed your mind...
He went back on his word"
If I changed my mind on an opinion, or evolved my opinion, or altered my viewpoint, or flip flopped, or did a 180 on my view are all the same.
You last one implied I promised something.
Now if I PROMISED, and made a VOW to stick to a view, then changed my mind, only then can you say I went back on my word, welched on my word, or whatever descriptor you choose.
Which is why it was quoted.
It shows how essentially the same meaning could be colored by word choice.
And, yes, the last one is an attack.
That was the whole point of Copi's example.
Even in law, if I am just riding in the getaway car after a robbery, do or say nothing, even if I had nothing to do with it, "I am STILL an accomplice"
To take off a point for that is contrary to Objectivism.
Are you saying I "SHOULD" be forced against my will to do something I personally do not agree with?
However, what "Objectivism" is can depend on which Objectivist you ask. A few searches proved unhelpful here but I believe that an ARI writer condemned homosexuality as "faking reality." I note, however, that Leonard Peikoff does not take that view.
For a positive claim, see the works of Chris Matthey Sciabarra, for instance, here:
http://rebirthofreason.com/Store/Ayn_...
Wikipedia has an article on the topic that also surveys the pros and cons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objecti...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxtHo...
Her view in general was that one shouldn't betray one's own happiness--though of course she held, quite rightly, that happiness should be viewed in the context of the long-term pursuit of the life of a rational being.
That said, you can not change my social world view by force as long as I am not initiating force. Let people pursue non-violent happiness!
Observe the proliferation of grotesque herds or gangs—hippies, yippies, beatniks, peaceniks, Women’s Libs, Gay Libs, Jesus Freaks, Earth Children—which are not tribes, but shifting aggregates of people desperately seeking tribal “protection.”
Of interest would be the group-think tribes which would make that list today.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ant...